Buddhist Have a Soul

[Rick O'Shez]

I stay out of the Buddhist DIR section but this is 'General Religious Debates'. I am free to point out my opinion that this atheistic-materialist school of Buddhism is not representative of Buddhism as a whole.

Your opinion is basically worthless because you don't practice in the Buddhist tradition and are looking in from the outside. The few Buddhists here are in fact from a number of different schools, and there is no Buddhist school called "atheistic-materialist." Perhaps you are objecting to western Buddhism in general, well, good luck with that.

 

[George-ananda]

Your opinion is basically worthless because you don't practice in the Buddhist tradition.

Nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hey. Did you read the link I gave you? Or in part? I usually go off the sutras. We have many opinions on what The Buddha taught but, well, I'ma sola scrip-sutra person.

Added the etymologies of each word, so you can see what they mean, and how they all have the same root breath.

Atman doesn't mean breathe. It's just the force or X-factor that makes the universe, people, etc go. It's not a soul/identity of the universe. Now you can compare it to life/breathe of a person. However, using life to describe universe is odd. So, Atman works good there. Not with soul, though. Totally different definition and context.

Where does it talk about the psyche in the New Testament? Not metaphysics and analogies but actual workings of the mind? Unless there is a dictionary for a different definition of psyche? Religious dictionary?

All these words mean soul, self, life.

Soul and self used as nouns. The soul is the identity of a person. The self is what differentiates one person from another.

Atman and life are used as verbs. They are animate and make the universe breathe (if you like), go, or have gas.

According to Buddhism there is no reason to believe that there is an eternal soul that comes from heaven or that is created by itself and that will transmigrate or proceed straight away either to heaven or hell after death.​

There is no eternal soul in Buddhism. It (and the rest) are only "conventional words that the Buddha teaches [as our] ego, self, soul, personality, etc...they do not refer to any real, independent entity." The soul isn't a independent entity in Buddhism. It doesn't exist. The Buddha describes what you call soul as the literal not metaphysical workings of the psyche. He doesn't use fancy language. It's just exotic using Sanskrit terms for the laws of nature.

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.​

Good, clear-cut example of what I gave you in the other link about anatta. The soul doesn't exist in Buddhism. What is there left if there is no-self and self at the same time? How do you define the empty void (emptiness) as a soul?

I know the author is going on a limb trying to define soul in Buddhist point of view, but:

The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces (pancakkhandha), made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha).​

The Buddha talks about these things as the functions of the mind not the soul. He focuses on the psyche.

You can define the psyche as soul. Your preference as well as the author's. It depends on your faith. However, if you come from the god-thought and go to a man-thought, then you realize soul doesn't exists. Everything you experience from your interpretation of soul to your view of god comes from the mind.

BINGO!

The belief in soul or Self and the Creator God, is so strongly rooted in the minds of many people that they cannot imagine why the Buddha did not accept these two issues which are indispensable to many religions. In fact some people got a shock or became nervous and tried to show their emotion when they heard that the Buddha rejected these two concepts.​

You'd have to find a sutra or sutta that supports your point. The author is looking from a god-lens not objective and definitely not from a Buddhist point of view.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Find me a quote from Buddha stating we have no soul, and will question it.

I could provide many such quotes, but it wouldn't make any difference because you have your preconceptions, and you are not really interested in understanding what Buddhism actually teaches, which is anatta and sunyata.

Your only interest is trying to make Buddhist ideas fit into your strange DIY religion, but they won't, you are on a fools errand or some kind of strange ego-trip.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nonsense.

No, it's correct. You are looking at Buddhism through the lens of your own beliefs and preconceptions ( including a strong attraction to the paranormal ), and inevitably missing the point.

But how is it any of your concern how Buddhists practice? Why do have this need to make such judgemental pronouncements about people in another tradition? Have you joined the Dharma Police or something? Weird.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@wizanda I don't mean to be rude, that's not my nature, and I agree with what @Rick O'Shez says. I think you're defining Buddhism through your beliefs rather than from the beliefs of an actual Buddhist and more so The Buddha himself.

There are thousands of Buddhist sutras and suttas. Do you know of any that talks about the soul itself? Where in the sutras is that word use? In what context?

Don't compare it to how you view soul. Just go off the suttras. Nothing opinionated. No Wikis please.

 

[George-ananda]

No, it's correct. You are looking at Buddhism through the lens of your own beliefs and preconceptions ( including a strong attraction to the paranormal ), and inevitably missing the point.

But how is it any of your concern how Buddhists practice? Why do have this need to make such judgemental pronouncements about people in another tradition? Have you joined the Dharma Police or something? Weird.

So what is your understanding of 'rebirth'?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't compare it to how you view soul. Just go off the suttras. Nothing opinionated. No Wikis please.

From previous experience what people do in these thread is some desperate googling until they quote-mine something they think supports their point of view. They don't actually understand what they are quoting of course.

It's a shame that some non-Buddhists here are so intent on twisting Buddhist teachings to fit a personal agenda.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So what is your understanding of 'rebirth'?

It doesn't involve a soul. Buddhist teaching is based on conditionality and dependent arising.

 

[Twilight Hue]

.....

A clap in different spaces sounds different, same with our soul.

The soul is like water, if we try to hold it, it runs away; think this western idea of the soul being something solid, misses the point.

............

It seems to me your referencing the consistent fluid nature perceived through change, brought about through the aggregates, by which all phenomina, arise, passes, and dissipates. Even aggregates are subject here.

The "trick" is not to substancialise the subtitle appearance of substance and perminancy (or stability if you prefer) by which "soul" and such are attached.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If you happen to be one of the few who reads and believes the Bible then you will see that it does not say God gave man a soul it says man became a living soul. The same word translated soul is also translated body or animal or creature. Man IS a soul not man HAS a soul. And it does not depend on what religion you is. Those who do not believe the Bible are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[wizanda]

I could provide many such quotes

Then please do, I'm always open to all new information.

Did you read the link I gave you?

Of course, always read everything....Guess can't say the same for you....

Atman doesn't mean breathe.

'It is related to PIE *etmen (a root meaning "breath"; cognates: Dutch adem, Old High German atum "breath," Modern German atmen "to breathe" and Atem "respiration, breath", Old English eþian).' - Ātman

Where does it talk about the psyche in the New Testament?

Just posted you the Strongs references, Psyche is a Greek word used throughout the NT, meaning life, soul, self, that comes from the root breath.

Where in the sutras is that word use? In what context?

When using the term heart, that is referring to the soul; as stating previously, our soul is connected to us via the heart.

I think you're defining Buddhism

I'm not interested in defining a religion, people do that themselves; I'm interested in removing the fallacies, so we're left with the truth, from the evidence available to us.

googling

Actually some of us look for source material, and evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

It doesn't involve a soul. Buddhist teaching is based on conditionality and dependent arising.

But why the term 'rebirth'? There must be something that is reborn?

 

[wizanda]

But why the term 'rebirth'? There must be something that is reborn?

Think some people just make up their own DIY religion, removing additional contexts of many of the cultures these concepts came from; so it fits their own atheistic soulless agenda.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not interested in defining a religion, people do that themselves; I'm interested in removing the fallacies, so we're left with the truth, from the evidence available to us.

Your version of truth, which is a strange DIY religion you have cobbled together. That's fine for you, but please don't drag the rest of us into it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Think some people just make up their own DIY religion, removing additional contexts of many of the cultures these concepts came from; so it fits their own atheistic soulless agenda.

Buddhism doesn't teach Atman ( soul ) and Brahman ( God ), those are Hindu beliefs. You are just making stuff in a vain attempt to prop up your strange DIY religion. You're wasting your time, like all woolly syncretists.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But why the term 'rebirth'? There must be something that is reborn?

Technically it is punabhava, "re-becoming", and is an example of dependent arising. As an analogy, the "you" of tomorrow will not be the same as "you" of today, but the "you" of tomorrow will arise in dependence on the "you" of today. Also the "you" of tomorrow will have to live with the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today, which is a way of describing kamma.

In any case, Buddhism does not teach Atman and Brahman, those are Hindu beliefs. Not that there is actually any EVIDENCE for either of these beliefs, but that is perhaps another discussion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you happen to be one of the few who reads and believes the Bible then you will see that it does not say God gave man a soul it says man became a living soul. The same word translated soul is also translated body or animal or creature. Man IS a soul not man HAS a soul. And it does not depend on what religion you is. Those who do not believe the Bible are free to believe whatever you want.

I guess there are different understandings of what a "soul" is, but the important thing to observe that it is a religious BELIEF, and not supported by evidence. Like God of course.

 

[wizanda]

Your version of truth

Nope, as just stating, we remove fallacies in a subject first, and what we're left with is near the truth....

I don't hold ultimate truth, even if i was sent from Heaven, had a NDE, and was asked by the divine to do this....

Unlike some, I've got great faith "I don't know".... Show evidence, and I'm open to questioning any angles; yet you never do, try 'Googling'.

but please don't drag the rest of us into it.

No one forced you to join in being rude, kicking and screaming as you do.

Buddhism does not teach Atman and Brahman

Actually that is wrong, Buddha spoke about the universal mind, which is another name for Brahman, without any God contexts....

And the Heart is another name for the soul, to remove the additional contexts of Atman, which implies a self attached to us.

Like saying if you understood the additional contexts, you would understand why Buddha spoke the way he did....

Instead it seems you're just trying to make your own religious ideas fit with Buddhism.

"Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Pray tell us, Blessed One, about Universal Mind and its relation to the lower mind-system?

The Blessed One replied: The sense-minds and their centralized discriminating-mind are related to the external world which is a manifestation of itself and is given over to perceiving, discriminating, and grasping its maya(illusion)-like appearances.

Universal Mind (Alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.

Universal Mind is like a great ocean, its surface ruffled by waves and surges but its depths remaining forever unmoved. In itself it is devoid of personality and all that belongs to it, but by reason of the defilements upon its face it is like an actor a plays a variety of parts, among which a mutual functioning takes place and the mind-system arises."

 

[George-ananda]

Technically it is punabhava, "re-becoming", and is an example of dependent arising. As an analogy, the "you" of tomorrow will not be the same as "you" of today, but the "you" of tomorrow will arise in dependence on the "you" of today. Also the "you" of tomorrow will have to live with the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today, which is a way of describing kamma.

In any case, Buddhism does not teach

That doesn't make sense. I don't think the term 'rebirth' would have become part of Buddhism if it just meant what is as obvious as you state. My opinion is that this is a DIY version of Buddhism for the atheist-materialists.